There is also hypocrisy. The president of USA's posts are horrendous but somehow he and others who post horrific insults, lies and threats do not get knocks on their doors. This is an unequal fight by those in power and control with the ability and force to intimidate. It will cost us but we need to fight injury with insult. There are more of us. How much longer can this crazy unhinged distopian circus continue? How close to the cliff edge will the flock of sheep be before someone sounds the horn? Or is it too late?
…that’s what dictators do, i understand dictatorship is a brand new concept for america, but there’s first time for everything
…”Political Repression: A Comprehensive Overview of Its Legal Implications
Definition & meaning
Political repression refers to the mistreatment of individuals or groups for political reasons. This often aims to restrict or eliminate their participation in political activities. Such repression can manifest through various forms of human rights violations, including but not limited to…”
The Streever case is worth bringing, and the Bushart outcome is the one I would have led with. Thirty-seven days in jail for a meme is not a chilling effect. It is imprisonment for speech, and it is harder to explain away than a warning notice.
I want to raise something adjacent, and I do so as someone who has put money into this rather than only opinions. I backed Parler. I backed Gab. I am a principal of BitChute. Those platforms carry the speech that actually needs defending, which is the speech people find objectionable. Nobody needs a First Amendment for the agreeable kind.
When Parler was removed by AWS and both app stores in 2021, the organizations that write about chilling effects were largely silent. The same has been true of BitChute through payment processor removals, DNS pressure, and app store decisions. I approached several of them at the time and got nowhere.
I understand the doctrinal answer: the First Amendment constrains state action, and these were formally private decisions. But that line is not applied consistently. FIRE and others regularly intervene where no state action exists—private university discipline, publisher decisions, corporate speech policies, and other forms of private governance. If the state-action principle is controlling, it should control consistently. If it does not, then it is functioning as a preference rather than a principle.
There is also the practical point. A warning notice at a door silences one person. Removal from AWS, Visa, and the app stores can effectively silence an entire platform and everyone on it, with no court, no statute, and no procedure anyone can invoke. If the concern is freedom after speech, then the relevant chokepoint is where the consequence actually lands. And after the disclosures about government jawboning, it is increasingly difficult to treat all of these decisions as wholly private.
I defend speech I deplore. That is the only version of the position that means anything. I would rather have organizations like yours doing this work than not, which is why I am writing this instead of complaining somewhere else.
This has been long before ICE and could have been more thoroughly examined during the first 2 years of Israel's genocide on Gaza and the instantaneous hammer of government and institutional punishment and intimidation against those who dared point to the genocide.
Part of the problem is that too many people think the First Amendment is far more or far less than it really is. The First Amendment used idiomatic expressions such as "the freedom of speech" or "the freedom of the press," but those expressions are merely reflections a far more fundamental principle. The First Amendment was designed to remind the People and our public servants of our proper places.
One of the most enlightening SCOTUS decisions ever written regarding the core purpose and primary significance of First Amendment rights and freedoms is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Our “Constitution created a [republican] form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’ [Our Constitution] dispersed power” in many ways precisely because “of the people’s” extreme “distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels.” In our “Republican Government,” the “censorial power is” necessarily generally “in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.” All “public men” are essentially “public property,” so “discussion cannot be denied and the right” and “duty” of “criticism must not be stifled.”
Clearly, courts cannot “give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve” by giving any public servant more “immunity” than the people, themselves, “granted” their public servants. All courts must protect all Americans’ “privilege for criticism of official conduct.” All courts must “support” the “privilege for the citizen-critic of government.” Such “privilege is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” “(I)t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind” on “all public institutions.”
The foregoing allusion to immunity that the people granted to our public servants is well worth more careful consideration. In Article I, the People vested in Congress only the "legislative Powers herein granted" and to facilitate the exercise of such powers, the People granted Congress immunity regarding expression and communication: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Before all that, though, "the People of the United States" acted as the first and the supreme legislative body for the United States to "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The First Amendment merely explicitly declared certain powers that the sovereign people had reserved to themselves. Cf. Tenth Amendment ('powers" that were "reserved" to "the people"). The First Amendment merely explicitly declared certain powers that the sovereign people had exercised in writing, ratifying and implementing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The immunity that the People granted to our representatives in Article I reflects our own power and freedom to speak about issues and people relevant to our self-government.
Additional SCOTUS opinions highlighted what the First Continental Congress said about the freedom of expression and communication. In October 26, 1774, the First Continental Congress declared “five great rights” of all American citizens. That august assemblage included some of the brightest stars, not only of the American Revolution, but also of the future new government under our Constitution starting in 1789. They included our first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, and our first SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Jay (each of whom also was a member of the Second Continental Congress), as well as Samuel Adams and John Dickinson (the Penman of the Revolution).
They declared that one of our “great rights” was “the freedom of the press.” That great right helps illustrate the great truth in our Declaration of Independence that “all” citizens are “equal.” Fortunately, the 1774 Congress did more than merely write that right. They emphasized its meaning and power:
"The importance of this consists" in very significant part of "the advancement of truth" and the "diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs."
The foregoing was highlighted by SCOTUS justices in in Near v. Minnesota in 1931 and Roth v. United States in 1957, as well as in Thornhill v. Alabama in 1940 (in which SCOTUS substituted “ashamed” for “shamed”).
Our public servants need to be reminded again that they are our representatives, not our rulers.
I hope that the author was similarly alarmed when the Biden Administration called out as terrorists parents who objected to various school board policies.
There is also hypocrisy. The president of USA's posts are horrendous but somehow he and others who post horrific insults, lies and threats do not get knocks on their doors. This is an unequal fight by those in power and control with the ability and force to intimidate. It will cost us but we need to fight injury with insult. There are more of us. How much longer can this crazy unhinged distopian circus continue? How close to the cliff edge will the flock of sheep be before someone sounds the horn? Or is it too late?
…that’s what dictators do, i understand dictatorship is a brand new concept for america, but there’s first time for everything
…”Political Repression: A Comprehensive Overview of Its Legal Implications
Definition & meaning
Political repression refers to the mistreatment of individuals or groups for political reasons. This often aims to restrict or eliminate their participation in political activities. Such repression can manifest through various forms of human rights violations, including but not limited to…”
https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/p/political-repression
Sarah,
The Streever case is worth bringing, and the Bushart outcome is the one I would have led with. Thirty-seven days in jail for a meme is not a chilling effect. It is imprisonment for speech, and it is harder to explain away than a warning notice.
I want to raise something adjacent, and I do so as someone who has put money into this rather than only opinions. I backed Parler. I backed Gab. I am a principal of BitChute. Those platforms carry the speech that actually needs defending, which is the speech people find objectionable. Nobody needs a First Amendment for the agreeable kind.
When Parler was removed by AWS and both app stores in 2021, the organizations that write about chilling effects were largely silent. The same has been true of BitChute through payment processor removals, DNS pressure, and app store decisions. I approached several of them at the time and got nowhere.
I understand the doctrinal answer: the First Amendment constrains state action, and these were formally private decisions. But that line is not applied consistently. FIRE and others regularly intervene where no state action exists—private university discipline, publisher decisions, corporate speech policies, and other forms of private governance. If the state-action principle is controlling, it should control consistently. If it does not, then it is functioning as a preference rather than a principle.
There is also the practical point. A warning notice at a door silences one person. Removal from AWS, Visa, and the app stores can effectively silence an entire platform and everyone on it, with no court, no statute, and no procedure anyone can invoke. If the concern is freedom after speech, then the relevant chokepoint is where the consequence actually lands. And after the disclosures about government jawboning, it is increasingly difficult to treat all of these decisions as wholly private.
I defend speech I deplore. That is the only version of the position that means anything. I would rather have organizations like yours doing this work than not, which is why I am writing this instead of complaining somewhere else.
Jeffrey Wernick
This has been long before ICE and could have been more thoroughly examined during the first 2 years of Israel's genocide on Gaza and the instantaneous hammer of government and institutional punishment and intimidation against those who dared point to the genocide.
Part of the problem is that too many people think the First Amendment is far more or far less than it really is. The First Amendment used idiomatic expressions such as "the freedom of speech" or "the freedom of the press," but those expressions are merely reflections a far more fundamental principle. The First Amendment was designed to remind the People and our public servants of our proper places.
One of the most enlightening SCOTUS decisions ever written regarding the core purpose and primary significance of First Amendment rights and freedoms is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Our “Constitution created a [republican] form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’ [Our Constitution] dispersed power” in many ways precisely because “of the people’s” extreme “distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels.” In our “Republican Government,” the “censorial power is” necessarily generally “in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.” All “public men” are essentially “public property,” so “discussion cannot be denied and the right” and “duty” of “criticism must not be stifled.”
Clearly, courts cannot “give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve” by giving any public servant more “immunity” than the people, themselves, “granted” their public servants. All courts must protect all Americans’ “privilege for criticism of official conduct.” All courts must “support” the “privilege for the citizen-critic of government.” Such “privilege is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” “(I)t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind” on “all public institutions.”
The foregoing allusion to immunity that the people granted to our public servants is well worth more careful consideration. In Article I, the People vested in Congress only the "legislative Powers herein granted" and to facilitate the exercise of such powers, the People granted Congress immunity regarding expression and communication: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Before all that, though, "the People of the United States" acted as the first and the supreme legislative body for the United States to "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The First Amendment merely explicitly declared certain powers that the sovereign people had reserved to themselves. Cf. Tenth Amendment ('powers" that were "reserved" to "the people"). The First Amendment merely explicitly declared certain powers that the sovereign people had exercised in writing, ratifying and implementing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The immunity that the People granted to our representatives in Article I reflects our own power and freedom to speak about issues and people relevant to our self-government.
Additional SCOTUS opinions highlighted what the First Continental Congress said about the freedom of expression and communication. In October 26, 1774, the First Continental Congress declared “five great rights” of all American citizens. That august assemblage included some of the brightest stars, not only of the American Revolution, but also of the future new government under our Constitution starting in 1789. They included our first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, and our first SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Jay (each of whom also was a member of the Second Continental Congress), as well as Samuel Adams and John Dickinson (the Penman of the Revolution).
They declared that one of our “great rights” was “the freedom of the press.” That great right helps illustrate the great truth in our Declaration of Independence that “all” citizens are “equal.” Fortunately, the 1774 Congress did more than merely write that right. They emphasized its meaning and power:
"The importance of this consists" in very significant part of "the advancement of truth" and the "diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs."
The foregoing was highlighted by SCOTUS justices in in Near v. Minnesota in 1931 and Roth v. United States in 1957, as well as in Thornhill v. Alabama in 1940 (in which SCOTUS substituted “ashamed” for “shamed”).
Our public servants need to be reminded again that they are our representatives, not our rulers.
I hope that the author was similarly alarmed when the Biden Administration called out as terrorists parents who objected to various school board policies.